Direct link: https://tokens.kleros.io

There are inconsistencies in dispute resolution and how jurors are voting.

Highlighting the decision making process, providing some evidence and clarity

1. 7 March 2019

1a)

1b)

Kleros_x_Ethfinex_TCR_-_A_Deep_Dive_Explainer 2.png

2. 27 March 2019

To incentivize even more submissions, we're giving away 1 Million PNK to token submitters.

2a)

Token name kleros.png

2b)

kleros pnk gif animated.gif

Check the Decision Token - HST, It has been accepted: https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x58c7f7bbca5131faf8e22cabbf6796ddec7d1ab11b17414f6f29d027a22dfd18

Screenshot 2019-04-17 at 06.32.30.png

Would Kleros team in multiple blog posts presented multiple examples that are controversial and promote ambiguity?

I don't think so, life is already complicated enough...

Some examples to the contrary

Despite multiple blogposts and multiple examples, some of the jurors are leaning towards PROJECT NAME rather than TOKEN NAME. There examples of both ruling in existence, here are some notable examples against:

REP

https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x49341662246c47a630b233038474c598992a01eba46acb49a6f42685e393c5c5
Screenshot 2019-04-16 at 22.32.08.png

PNK

https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x9baffd2c27138f708a3296a6ea112f1bd22ac6eda02c125ea76ca4491ccf3ce1
Screenshot 2019-04-16 at 22.34.28.png

Hopefully this blog post will provide clarity.

(or make it even more complicated)

Let's see how deep the rabbit hole goes!

Experimental technology

This is the second pilot.

The third one is on the way: https://escrow.kleros.io/

Lack of clear rules

You can see the differences between TOKEN NAME and PROJECT NAME

The rules are being discussed retroactively:

Governance on Aragon: http://governance.kleros.io
Forum: https://forum.kleros.io/t/proposal-name-a/154

The blogpost you are reading now is also discussing the rules.

Establishing a precedence

Are we using this legal system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law Or is each dispute treated separately, in isolation? We should discuss that in the first place...

Before we say "we set a precedent", do we agree on the rule of precedent?

Cross-dispute reputation

Identity on the blockchain. If I do a malicious claim in one dispute, should that be used against me in another?

Clear arguments

Participants are presenting evidence in a concise way. Those who have skills to present it have advantage.

Better UI to display the timeline (and provenance) of the evidence

To know if the evidence comes from the submitter or challenger.

On the other hand, this can be easily circumvented by creating a separate account.

Jurors research

In real life, evidence is presented to the jury. Here - do we want to encourage jurors to DYOR (do your own research)?

Asking at the source

When doing your own research, receiving answer directly from the source should have high importance.

Incentive to vote coherently

Jurors are awarded when they vote coherently. Blockchain, miners, crypto algorithms do not now what is truth.

It is possible, that as a juror I have a little known fact and I believe that other jurors will not know it, will decide to vote coherently rather than truthfully.

Training (and skills) of the jurors

Directly from the whitepaper: https://kleros.io/assets/whitepaper.pdf

When registering as jurors, users start in the General Court and follow a path to a specific subcourt according to their skills. Asking jurors to choose between subcourts incentivizes them to choose the subcourts they are the most skilled at.

Failsafe killswitch freeze "magic pause button"

In case something goes horribly wrong and there would be terrifying consequences - I'm OK for "code not the law" and if people are dying I'm morally OK to stop the execution.

Unsure / uncertain / minor discrepancy

Sometimes there is yes / no, black / white, clear answer. Sometimes, there is a whole array of potential outcomes and 0 or 1 is too radical, almost like a coinflip. Not sure how to implement "guys you should talk" on the blockchain. I've heard there is "refuse to arbitrate" and I need to dig into that more.

Incentive to submit tokens that you are absolutely sure

Uncertainty. Cost of appeal. Effort presenting additional evidence. Not worth the effort, too much stress.

Side effect - those tokens who recently changed logo are unlikely to be submitted - as many of the reference websites have delay updating.

Economic incentives of appeal

I need to better understand: https://blog.kleros.io/kleros-decentralized-token-listing-appeal-fees/

I've already lost some ETH deposit. I do not fully understood the concept of funding an appeal, also need to dug more here.

PNK Whale

Here is the address with 9m PNK: https://etherscan.io/address/0x82a8439ba037f88bc73c4ccf55292e158a67f125#tokentxns

I went through the rabbit hole of tracking the transaction history on the blockchain.

Here are relevant snippets from the white paper: https://kleros.io/assets/whitepaper.pdf

The probability of being drawn as a juror for a specific dispute is proportional to the amount of tokens a juror deposits. The higher the amount of tokens it deposits, the higher the probability that it will be drawn as juror.

The probability to be drawn as a juror is proportional to the amount of deposited tokens. Theoretically, a candidate may be drawn more than once for a specific dispute (but in practice it is unlikely).

If you know some Solidity...

...you should know there are sizeable security bounties:

ArbitrableTokenList: https://etherscan.io/address/0xebcf3bca271b26ae4b162ba560e243055af0e679#code
KlerosLiquid: https://etherscan.io/address/0x988b3a538b618c7a603e1c11ab82cd16dbe28069#code

Core developers working on the project are super helpful and super responsive to any queries.

To be honest, I wish I've spent more time developing the code, rather than "splitting hairs" (a legal term) and being totally into dispute mode.

Join the discussion:

Kleros discussions.png

Kleros TCR - Token Curated Registry - TOKEN NAME vs PROJECT NAME